A frequent, well informed reader of this blog writes:
Your posting of 17 July, "Paper Chase: All Sorts of Papers" revealed a veritable goldmine, and as at 27 July had resulted in what must be a near-record number of 116 comments. Many of these are taken up with a running dialogue (battle?) between Max Patrick Hamon and Yannick Clement, on the Sindon = Mandylion hypothesis.
At comment #85, reference is made to John Jackson’s work on searching for fold mark residuals, and it seems that some were not persuaded by his presentation. I found a set of videos on a "videola uk" site where Jackson presents his argument. I was unable to find a date for the video, and possibly you may have posted it previously. However I thought it worth a mention, so that blog readers may be able to judge for themselves.
The page also give several links to other important topics, including the pollen residues and other topics.
The first video is a summary, and the rest give a more detailed exposition. I felt that Jackson’s presentation might have made more of a case than he actually managed to do, and some of his message gets lost in unnecessary technical details.
The raking light showed up several wrinkles which Jackson says are caused by rolling up with the backing cloth. But a genuine fold residual can be identified by 1) the fold mark extends across the full width of the cloth, 2) the regularity or periodicity of the equal spacings of the marks (generally at the one-eighth points).
He seemed unable to identify some of the frontal image folds, and attributes this to some kind of weighted rod attached to the foot of the sindon, for purposes of exhibiting it in the form observed by Robert de Clari. This may have resulted in eliminating this fold mark. He also identified four closely spaced folds near the feet of the image, and attempts an explanation of these.
You may like to consider whether this is worth a posting.
It is certainly worth posting. You can also click here or on the picture.